GeForce GT 240M vs Quadro M2200
Aggregated performance score
Quadro M2200 outperforms GeForce GT 240M by 2027% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 392 | 1184 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.02 | no data |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | N17P-Q3 | N10P-GS |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Current price | $1967 | $129 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro M2200 and GT 240M have a nearly equal value for money.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | 48 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 694 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1870 Million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 66.30 | 8.800 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 116.16 gflops |
| Gigaflops | no data | 174 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro M2200 and GeForce GT 240M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3, GDDR2, GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5508 MHz | Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 88 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Single Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | no data |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | 5.2 | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Quadro M2200 outperforms GeForce GT 240M by 2027% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Quadro M2200 outperforms GeForce GT 240M by 2009% in Passmark.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Quadro M2200 outperforms GeForce GT 240M by 938% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 45
+275%
| 12
−275%
|
| 4K | 14 | 0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+263%
|
8−9
−263%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 20−22 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+263%
|
8−9
−263%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 20−22 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 20−22 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5 | 0−1 |
This is how Quadro M2200 and GT 240M compete in popular games:
- Quadro M2200 is 275% faster than GT 240M in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro M2200 is 1700% faster than the GT 240M.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro M2200 surpassed GT 240M in all 25 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.06 | 0.52 |
| Recency | 13 January 2017 | 15 June 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 23 Watt |
The Quadro M2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M2200 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GT 240M is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
